Andy Burnham: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the Government will certainly not accept an arbitrary quota on migration, which was proposed by his party at the general election, and which, I believe, would be highly damaging to the British economy. We will not be going down that path, if that was the thrust of his question. The net contribution to our economy made by migrants should be celebrated, and it is high time that he and his party stopped playing politics with the issue and began to welcome the genuine contribution that economic migrants make to our country.

Andy Burnham: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) could not spare time for us here in the House today. Presumably he had more important things to do out on the campaign trail. Presumably he is going up and down the country trying to win votes with a hard-line right-wing agenda.
	I believe it was the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who said last week
	"The trouble is when the Conservative Party has got in difficulty in recent years, there has always been a temptation to give"—

Paul Goggins: The police performance assessments published by the Home Office and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on 27 October show that in 2004–05 the West Mercia police force achieved a very positive assessment of its performance across the range of its core policing activity. All delivery grades are either good or excellent, and most direction grades have improved.

Philip Dunne: I am sure the Minister agrees that we should congratulate Paul West, the chief constable, on the fact that his force not only achieved those grades but was the top-performing force in the country, on the Minister's own criteria. How does he reconcile that outstanding performance with his Department's arbitrary decision, made during the current "Closing the Gap" consultation, that there should be a minimum force size of 4,000 officers? West Mercia has just proved that, with only 2,400 officers, it can deliver the best performance for the best value in the country.

Paul Goggins: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in praising Paul West and all his officers and staff for their tremendous achievements. They have cut crime in their area by 13 per cent. Burglary, for example, is down by 22 per cent. However, there is no contradiction between giving that praise clearly in the House and elsewhere and accepting the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate that, in order that we can deal with terrorism and serious organised crime, and ensure that neighbourhood policing is not taken away from local communities, we need to have strategic forces of the size that it suggests: 4,000 officers and 6,000 staff. Those are not arbitrary figures. Her Majesty's inspectorate judges that those are the numbers that we need.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. I confirm that, in the past year in West Mercia, robbery went down by 19 per cent., so it is a safer place to live in. Again, the police deserve praise for that. In relation to the change that is being suggested by the inspectorate and the need to ensure that we have robust strategic police forces, there is no blueprint. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no blueprint for the forces that will emerge. He wants to hear from local opinion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to contribute to that consultation.

Mark Pritchard: That is quite a revelation. I have been informed, perhaps misinformed, that there are currently five vacancies. Whether it is three or five, does the Minister share my concern—[Interruption.] I know why hon. Members want to shout me down. They do not want to hear what I have to say. Does the Minister share my concern, in the context of the global terror that we currently live with, that three, or possibly five, major police forces are having their command and control diminished by those vacancies? Is it not another example of the Government driving through their regional agenda before full consultation has taken place?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the basic unit of policing in his area will be a basic command unit with a borough commander, which is the basis on which neighbourhood policing will be provided. We have a commitment to ensure that every community, urban and rural, has a dedicated, available and accessible neighbourhood policing team by 2008. People will have the team's mobile phone numbers and can contact them, and they will have the same officers for two or three years. That is the way in which the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others across the country will be able to see that they have neighbourhood police officers, dedicated to making sure that their streets are safe and their communities more secure.

David Borrow: In cases of merger between police forces, will the appointment of the new chief constable be restricted to the chief constables of the forces being merged, or will the new police authority have discretion to look within a wider pool of police officers for the new chief constable?

Hazel Blears: It is very important that the debate be led by police authorities and police forces, and it must involve Members of Parliament and local councils. That is why the current consultation is led from the areas themselves and not from the centre by Government. We want to make sure that people locally can make the right decisions. I cannot say at this stage what the procedure will be in terms of that recruitment process, but I am clear that the police authorities need to be fully involved in the process so that they get the command teams that can do the job we want them to do.

Hazel Blears: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance. When he came to see me last week—with other Members of Parliament from Staffordshire, including some of my hon. Friends—he will have had the sense that was I listening to the points that were made. We are a listening Government—[Interruption.] We are a listening Government, and we are flexible, pragmatic and practical. We want to make sure that when the new structures are in place, they are fit for purpose. The point is that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary said that the current 43-force structure is not fit for purpose and it is the responsibility of any Government to take seriously the advice of the inspectorate and to try to make sure that our structures have the capacity, capability and resilience to be able to protect our citizens from the threats we face.

Charles Clarke: On the contrary, this Government, like other Governments, currently have agreements with telecommunications companies on the retention of data. The Council of Ministers has said that an agreement will be reached by the end of this year, and I am confident that that will be the case. I am working to extend that agreement to the European Parliament, so that it, too, is part of the process. The message will be much stronger if all institutions—the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament—work jointly to fight terrorism. That is what I am seeking to achieve, and I am confident that we will do so.

Charles Clarke: I have a simple, one-word comment on the LSE report, and it is the same as that on its previous report: nonsense—a load of nonsense. We have set out the figures very clearly, and ID cards contribute to our ability to defend ourselves against terrorism and serious and organised crime. That is one reason why we are promoting the Bill currently before the House of Lords.

Edward Garnier: There is no doubt that wider international, as well as EU, co-operation is essential in dealing with terrorism. But will the Home Secretary accept that the Prime Minister's somewhat petulant statement this morning on the 90-day detention proposal undermines the Home Secretary's authority and his rather more rational approach to counter-terrorism law, and damages his ability to advance EU co-operation on counter-terrorism?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that under serious organised crime legislation, not just those but all offences will be given arrestable effect, and that will be happening shortly. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need effective procedures to help reduce repeat victimisation. If we look at the impact of what we have already done—much more dynamic than anything done for a very long time—we can see that repeat victimisation is being reduced and that women are being made safer. The present proposal, which will be brought into effect in due course, is adding to what is already an effective programme of action to protect women and men against domestic violence.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I wonder if he is aware that earlier this year figures showed that 32 per cent. of all black males in the UK were on the DNA database, but only 8 per cent. of white males. Does he recognise the growing concern about racial profiling and disproportionality in criminal investigations, and will he undertake to find out what underlies those figures?

Cheryl Gillan: I wondered, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister would make some real investment in aftercare and services?

Paul Goggins: May I express some mild surprise? The hon. Lady has carried her Front-Bench responsibilities for a long time and I know that she visits prisons and takes a deep interest in these issues, so how she can retain such a wholly negative assessment of the current position baffles me, because she knows that many staff are working hard to turn people's lives around. The number of people employed to work with drug misusers has increased from 6,000 to 10,000 as a result of the massive investment that the Government have made, not just for offenders in prison but for offenders in the community; 55,000 offenders in prison were on a maintenance or detoxification programme last year and 40 per cent. of all prisoners are on voluntary drug testing. I do not think that her question reveals the full picture, which is more positive than she reports.

John Maples: Many hon. Members hope that the current reorganisation of police forces, on which the Government are consulting, will lead to a reduction in administrative burdens, although we remain to be convinced of that. Those of us who represent rural areas with small police forces must weigh that against what we think will be a reduction in local democratic accountability and pressure on rural policing because big cities drag in more of the resources. Are the Government prepared, in response to that consultation, to entertain proposals that would create two levels of policing—one at regional or national level that would deal with very serious crime, thereby leaving local policing to locally accountable police forces?

Iain Wright: Police in my patch welcome the cut in the number of police forms that they must produce, but they complain that when an arrest is made they are taken off the streets into the police station, where they must fill in paper-based forms. Will my right hon. Friend permit the use, perhaps on a pilot basis, of electronic hand-held devices such as PDA to minimise bureaucracy in administration, as much as is possible, and ensure that police officers are on the beat for as long as possible?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister can listen to the Speaker, as well, and maybe we will get shorter answers.

Cheryl Gillan: Surely fulfilling contractual obligations is not enough. Two weeks ago I visited Group 4 Securicor's tagging headquarters and was surprised to learn from the company that it is currently not subject to an inspection regime. With more than 3,000 prisoners tagged and high-profile failures, why is there no specific provision for an inspection regime in this highly sensitive area?

Adam Ingram: Let me calm it down a wee bit. The hon. Gentleman says that he has military experience, but I think I am right in saying that he has never had any ministerial experience. I conclude from his comments that had he been a Minister on this occasion, he would have interfered in the due process of law. That is not the standard that applies in this country, and I do not think Conservative Front Benchers are saying the same, although some of them have been through it.—[Interruption.] The Attorney-General will answer for himself. His is the highest opinion that can be sought.
	The Army Prosecuting Authority is dealing with some heavyweight issues, which has excited the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). It is right that it should have done so, but he has been led to the wrong conclusions. I think it appropriate for that independent authority to take the case to the Attorney-General, who is a ministerial superintendent of the APA. Independence is involved in that process. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is not involved, he will have to prove his case. The system has stood the test of time. It is still valid today, and I think that it will stand the test of time in the future.

Adam Ingram: If wrong-doing has occurred, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that we should simply ignore it. [Interruption.] Members indicate dissent but I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether, as an ex-soldier, he understands what he was taught and the rule of law that he had to apply. He knew that, if he stepped over that line, he could be subject to investigation. Clearly, as with any other criminal action, if that is indeed what it was, such an investigation could be subject to retrospective review. At any point, if new evidence arises, it is right that it is examined.
	I am not going to comment on speculation in the press. That will be debated when we deal with some of the ongoing difficult issues we have had to face day upon day, month upon month in moving forward the peace process in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman because he, as a serving soldier, helped to bring about that peace by applying the highest standards of integrity, probity and—[Interruption.]

Andrew Turner: Can the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former education Minister, tell me whether the recent White Paper adds to, or reduces, the responsibilities of local government?

Nick Raynsford: I hear my hon. Friend's argument for postponement—I do not agree with it—but I do not understand the argument for deleting the provision for a 10-yearly cycle for revaluation. That was the subject of Government consultation in 1999–2000 and was the subject of a White Paper, which set out a commitment to a 10-year revaluation. As far as I know, Sir Michael Lyons has not been asked to comment on whether that revaluation cycle should change. I simply do not understand the Minister's logic for cancelling a provision for regulation revaluations.

David Miliband: He is, indeed, my very good friend and he speaks with a great deal of authority on these matters. He will know more than anyone else that at the time of the 2002 Bill there was a great deal of discussion about the requisite period. As it happens, and ironically in the current context, the Conservative spokesman in the other place wanted to reduce from 10 to five years, the—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is shouting from a sedentary position. We are all disappointed that she is not speaking today and that she has left the task to others; she may be winding up the debate, but I do not know.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) knows, there was considerable discussion about the period and we think that it is right to keep the flexibility created by the clause.
	Finally, the Bill replaces those two provisions for revaluation, for at least 10-yearly intervals, with a power for the Secretary of State to specify the date on which a new valuation list must be compiled. Such orders will be subject to the House's affirmative resolution procedure. That was also the case in respect of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which created the council tax in the first place. For the sake of completeness, clause 2 simply provides for the short title of the Bill and for its extent.
	I can bring the House up to date with progress at the Valuation Office Agency, which was responsible for carrying out the revaluation. Immediately following the announcement, the VOA took steps to reduce ongoing expenditure and to reshape the agency to fit the new situation. Some 420 staff employed as casuals or on fixed term contracts will have left the agency by the 18 November. A voluntary early departure scheme has been announced, with some 600 staff expected to depart between March and June 2006. Coupled with natural wastage, the total reduction is expected to amount to some 1,250 staff.
	As we set out on 20 September, there will be significant short-term savings for the Government from not proceeding with revaluation. However, the Government have been explicit that £45 million of the £60 million spent so far is a prudent investment in modern and efficient working practices. The VOA will ensure that the country has an up-to-date, electronic property database, available as a source of accurate data.

Nick Raynsford: I regret to say that I cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill. Having said that, the speech by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was extraordinary. Before he got carried away in his flights of floral fantasy, he said that he agreed with the postponement of the revaluation and with the removal of the obligation to carry out revaluation on a regular 10-yearly cycle. I would have wholeheartedly agreed with him on both counts, but he does not appear to want my support.
	Everyone who has considered this issue starts from the simple proposition that if we have a system of local government taxation based on local property values, those values must be revisited periodically. No one has argued credibly that the current values based on 1991 levels should remain the basis of council tax for evermore.

David Clelland: I am interested in the direction that this conversation is taking. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister recently said that property-based taxes were introduced at a time when services—such as water, electricity and sewerage services—were based on property, while services today, including education and social services, are based on people? Do the Minister's comments suggest that the reason for the delayed revaluation might be that, in the minds of Ministers, there might not be any need for a property tax in future?

Nick Raynsford: I would like to make some progress. I have just given way, and I do not want to take up too much more time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
	What are the consequences of the Bill? We know that the basis of the council tax—the 1991 values—will become increasingly remote from reality as we get further away from the current valuation date. Having to calculate notional 1991 values for every new property built is nonsense. As I mentioned in our previous debate on the subject, some areas of my constituency were entirely void industrial wastelands 15 years ago, and anything built there would have had no value at all, so, now, it is slightly odd to create notional 1991 values for properties built as a result of that area's regeneration. That pattern is replicated all over the country. In addition, as the former Minister responsible for local government, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) rightly highlighted, there are already provisions for revaluation of some properties where those properties change hands and there has been a material change in value. The anomalies will therefore get worse.
	The overwhelming majority of properties, of course, have increased significantly in value since 1991—by some 216 per cent. on average, according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That is part of the problem. Many people who are not familiar with the arcane nature of the council tax process can easily be frightened into believing that because their property's value has increased dramatically over the past 14 years, they will be clobbered by revaluation. That is fuelled by unscrupulous Opposition scaremongering, of which we saw a great deal in the run-up to the general election, and of which we have heard a great deal more today. That does not help to foster a serious and rational debate about the proper system of finance for local government.
	As the Government have made repeatedly clear from 2001 onwards, however, the purpose of revaluation is not to increase the council tax yield but simply to bring values up to date, so that the tax is based on modern values rather than values that are increasingly remote from reality. Were the bands to be increased in line with house price inflation since 1991, most households would find themselves in the same band as before, with no increased liability for council tax. I have seen no recent Government estimates for the numbers of households whose banding would either increase or decrease under a revaluation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government has assured me that no new Government estimates have been prepared for Ministers since the election. The only official figures are those prepared previously—before the April 2005 valuation date. I am a little surprised that new estimates have not been prepared to inform Ministers' decision to postpone the revaluation, but in the absence of up-to-date official figures, we can only go on the evidence produced by well-informed commentators such as the RICS and the Halifax building society. Both indicate that the majority of households would have remained in the same band as a result of revaluation, and also suggest that more households would have gained than would have lost.

Nick Raynsford: As we have debated frequently in the past, the situation in Wales was very different, because there was an increase in yield there. The Government have always made it clear that there would be no increase in yield in England. In Wales, the yield has increased by some 8 or 9 per cent.—

Nick Raynsford: I merely said that, in the absence of official figures, evidence from the RICS and the Halifax implied if a revaluation were conducted with no increase in yield—if house-price values were simply uprated in line with average house-price inflation since 1991—the overall impact would be neutral, but the number of households that would gain would be larger than the number of losers. As the figures show, that is because there would be rather more gainers in the lower house-price bands, and a disproportionate number of losers in the higher bands.
	That brings me to my final point. If those figures are valid, it appears that the Bill will be regressive. It will result in more households on lower incomes paying more than they should because of a failure to revalue, while those in higher income bands and occupying more highly priced properties, who would possibly have paid more because the value of their properties has risen, will be spared. I cannot support a measure which seems to me to have no logic and no principle behind it, and which will have a regressive impact. It saddens me to say this, but I will not be able to support the Government tonight.

Sarah Teather: No, I am about to finish.
	It is rather like asking a vegetarian whether they would prefer steak or bacon. The Bill should be withdrawn and replaced with something sensible that tackles the system of local government finance. The Government will not do that, but we will, when we win in 2009. So while we wait for the power to introduce something different, we see no point in having a revaluation. It would be a costly waste of money; as we have heard, £60 million has been wasted on it already. It would be a total waste of time, given that we intend, when we are in government, to scrap the tax anyway and replace it with local income tax.
	I shall not go though all of the arguments again, because we have heard how much better a local income tax would be. We have heard also that we would localise business rates and make sure that local government has a proper system of finance. Even if hon. Members disagree with me about local income tax, they should agree that this whole revaluation fiasco is merely an excuse to defer once again the crucial question of a decent financial settlement for local government. Transforming local finance is key to transforming public services. We should not waste our energy fighting over revaluation just because it is an easy political game. We should invest our energies in solving the real problems: that the council tax is unfair, and that local government is held to ransom by the current funding system.
	Every minute that we fritter away on revaluation is a minute that we do not spend trying to solve those underlying problems. So I think that I had better shut up and sit down.

David Borrow: I come back to the experience of regular revaluations for business rates. When revaluations took place in the 1990s, some parts of the country experienced booms in property rents and certain classes of property had large increases in comparison with others. Provided that we have regular revaluations and some sort of transitional relief in place, we have a way of coping with the problem. We do not want to find ourselves in a position where we cannot have a revaluation because the change is so massive.
	I remember looking into property values in central Liverpool in the early 1980s. At that time, rates were based on rental values of the early 1970s and many business properties in the area were attracting more in rates than in rent. At the same time, there were tenants in central London paying 10 or 20 times as much in rent as they were in rates. That reflected the change in the economy during the period. It was also reflected in changes in domestic property values, albeit to a lesser extent.
	Another important problem with putting off property revaluations is that they have an impact on Government grants. The longer we delay revaluations, the longer it will be before Government grants reflect economic differences between one area and another. Liverpool got hammered in the 1980s with cuts in services and real financial problems. Had there been regular revaluations throughout the 1970s and 1980s, I suspect that Liverpool city council's budget position would have been much stronger in the 1980s because the revaluations would have reflected the recession in the city and would have fed through into the amount of Government grant awarded. We never did the revaluations, so that never happened.
	I shall vote in the same Lobby as the Minister tonight, though I was tempted by the appeal of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to vote in his Lobby—until he spoke. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will provide some reassurance that we are not talking about a long delay.
	I want to restate a point that I made in an earlier intervention—that the reason for having a revaluation in 2007, as against a business rate revaluation in 2005, was to even out the work load of the Valuation Office Agency, the valuation tribunals and all those involved in the valuation of rating and council tax. The danger is that we could end up with a revaluation of council tax not in 2011 but in 2013—20 years after the first council tax valuation. It is important that the revaluation of council tax ties in with the reform of local government finance because of the revaluation's impact on the amount of Government grant. Those two aspects need to be tied together under a new regime, rather than introduced separately. The timing is crucial.
	I want to comment on the views of Her Majesty's Opposition. On the one hand, they complain that domestic property prices have rocketed, with huge increases all over the place, so that a revaluation will mean some people paying a huge amount more. On the other hand, they say that there has been hardly any difference, so we do not need a revaluation. Both those arguments cannot be right. I have served on Standing Committees in which Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have said that there should be regular revaluations. There is plenty of documentation in the Library about the occasions on which Tory Front Benchers have argued in favour of having regular revaluations. Indeed, the Front Benchers currently accept the need for them, albeit as long into the future as possible.
	The danger is that, if we continue to put off council tax revaluation, whoever is in power in five or 10 years' time will be tempted to do a Michael Heseltine and we shall end up with council tax being unsustainable, so that it has to be ditched completely and something else dreamed up in its place. Let us do it properly. I want some assurances from the Minister that the postponement will be a short and sensible one, not one born of political expediency.

David Curry: This is a grubby little Bill that reflects a very English mess. If we build new houses—and the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to build very many new houses—we will all have to pretend that they were built in 1991 for the purpose of valuation and a fictional value will be associated with them. Let us suppose that I buy one of those houses and put on a conservatory and a granny annexe—although they are unlikely to be big enough to allow the latter addition—and, a couple of years later, I sell it. It will be revalued for council tax purposes and will probably go up a band. Let us suppose that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) lived next door and had decided to spend the rest of his life in his house, so he had added a conservatory, a granny annexe and an extremely well appointed garden shed. He would pay less council tax, even though he had a much more valuable asset.
	There are between 1.6 and 1.8 million house sales a year in Britain, or some 34,000 a week. Even allowing for sales of properties to which no substantive change has been made, a relatively high proportion of houses have been revalued—some more than once, depending on property turnover in the area—and that creates anomalies. Across the country, people ask, "Why on earth is he paying the same as I am? He has a much bigger house." My colleagues talk about the battles and the discontent that a revaluation would bring, but we should remember how much seething discontent can be caused by failing to have a revaluation and the continuation of the anomalies.
	I know that you do not wish us to trespass beyond Offa's Dyke, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the situation in Wales is interesting. There was a revaluation in Wales because the Welsh authorities decided that they wanted to get more revenue out of the system. It was not revenue neutral, because they set out to make it into a tax-raising venture, which was very successful. However, one consequence of the present situation is that the council tax will come under increasing strain. Local government finance has a wonderful capacity to start as a dot on the horizon no bigger than a man's fist and grow to emerge as a subject of colossal emotive and totemic power. We have hit just such a rough patch in the last couple of years.
	The Minister will say—I remember saying it myself and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich also said it—that council tax yield is not the same as average council tax. Of course it is not, because more houses are built and houses are revalued, but it does provide a good rough indication of likely council tax increases. We are now destined to spend the next five or six years going through the same sequence of minatory arguments, including threats of capping and blaming the local authority. The silliest argument of all pretends that the amount of money a council raises has nothing to do with the nature of the property in its area, as though somehow there was a curious moral perversity in the fact that Westminster manages to raise more money than Burnley on the basis of its council tax stock.
	More and more pressure will be felt because public expenditure is coming under strain and chickens are coming home to roost—as I forecast last year. There are reasons for a postponement for one year, and Sir Michael Lyons accepted that that was reasonable. For example, the changes in education funding and the introduction of three-year budgets make it reasonable to pause to see how all the bits will fit together. However, Ministers have suggested that we wait until there is no turbulence in house prices. What a wonderful notion. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up the Barker review to discuss why we had permanent turbulence in house prices. The link to structures is one of the most grotesque non sequiturs that I have come across, even from this Government. Ironically, we may have been living through a period when price disparities were closing to some extent. Select parts of my constituency are approaching the levels of the south, but as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would say, the variation regionally, and even locally, can be very significant indeed.

David Curry: From my reading of the Sunday papers I understand that the Cotswolds are no longer what they used to be, because all sorts of fashionable people who own large properties in London, which are no doubt at the top of the band, have gone there and opened up little bistros. One perfectly reasonable answer for a person who is asset-rich but cash-poor, which is the situation of that lady, would be to allow her to roll up her council tax into the final estate. There is nothing inherently unreasonable about that notion, and it is worth examining.

David Curry: If we have a property-based tax, a remorseless logic follows from it, which is that properties must reflect market value, albeit with some delay. The hon. Lady went into review of review of review. I thought that there was a Liberal Democrat review of their local government finance policy, but it appears to have passed her by. The Liberal Democrats did comprehensively badly in the south-east of England and a significant explanation for that may be the amount that bills would have hit home for property owners in the region.
	It is cloud-cuckoo land to think that we will have a period of no turbulence. Of course, there is a period of minimum political turbulence coming up—roughly in 2007, funnily enough, just when the revaluation was timed to hit. A Government who usually have an unfailing eye for timing appear to have missed that. The real problem is that the Government have discovered that there will be losers. They do not like losers; we cannot have losers under a Labour Government. Everybody has to be a winner all the time at the coconut shy. However, it is possible to deal with that, as I shall say in a moment.
	We are heading for conflict and much barren argument. Inevitably, old age pensioners, the canon or deacon of somewhere or other or belligerent elderly ladies will turn up at our surgeries—we wish that our agent could spot them in advance—all determined to set the world to rights. I wonder how much it will cost the taxpayer by the time they have gone through that long process, but they will manage to avoid paying fifty seven pounds, four shillings and threepence ha'penny, or whatever the amount happens to be.
	There is a way through, however. It is not rocket science, although I hate to use such well-worn expressions; I do not do rocket science as anyone familiar with my difficulties in handling the video will know. The first solution would be to link revaluation and re-banding. They go together; they are the salt and pepper of the process. Secondly, it would be perfectly possible to limit changes to a single band. In my part of the world, which might be described as regionally depressed, there are none the less areas that might be described by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as hot spots—Harrogate is one of them. We could stop that; the process does not have to be too sophisticated. There could simply be a shift of one band.
	I would add an upper band. Madonna has a predilection for large houses in London and large country estates. I find it charming that someone should wish to adopt the English way of life so comprehensively and expensively, but I see no reason why she should not pay an extra bob or two at the top of the band in London for that privilege. We could also add a lower band, to catch the trailer parks or areas in industrial east Lancashire that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) will know about, where there is a long history of deprivation and empty property. It is possible to manage all those things.
	The sensible thing is to drop all the fancy stuff. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was busy detailing all the sophisticated knobs and whistles that might be attached to the process. We should forget all that. The original valuation was simple, and we should keep the current one as simple as possible.
	I want to return business rates to local government, with the proper safeguards. We only need to read the snappy little document put out by the ODPM to realise that when council tax was introduced in 1993–94 business rates represented 28 per cent. of local government revenue and council tax 21 per cent. However, the estimates for the current year are that the figures will be 21 per cent. for business rates and 25 per cent. for council tax. The position has been inverted. Business has had an easy ride over the past decade compared to council tax. It is possible to set up safeguards that would reassure business about abusive increases. Furthermore, we might just as well recognise the reality of education expenditure and take the education block back into central Government. That would pretty well solve the problem. We would have gone an enormously long way towards creating a sustainable council tax and we would have returned to local government a much wider range of local resources over which it had control.
	The history of local government funding is dismal. It is a long tale of prevarication and delay. I once described the search for a sustainable local government funding system as like the search for the north-west passage. The problem was that, first, it did not exist and, secondly, there was a terrible danger of getting stuck in the pack ice. The Government are stuck in the pack ice. If they are not careful, council tax protests, difficulty in funding public expenditure and the annual demand for some sort of bung to make things easier will cause the structure of the vessel to be crushed by the pack ice. The Government will find themselves in a wholly justified mess, which I shall rue from the point of view of my constituents but applaud in seeing the Government get their just deserts.
	The worst thing is that it will be 2011 at the earliest before anything like a proper package can be introduced. There will be a long interregnum. There may be light at the end of the tunnel, but the light is entirely at the discretion of the Minister and it is a hell of a long tunnel. The light is faint and flickering and as the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says, the Government have taken away a proposal for action and replaced it with a void. They have removed the prospect for any long-term action.
	I am afraid that that is all of a piece with the Government's actions. We have backed away from a referendum on the European constitution. We have backed away from a sensible outcome for public sector pensions. We have backed away on local government funding. I just hope that the Government back away from their proposals on terrorism, the one thing that they should back away from, but we see that the Prime Minister intends to remain obdurate.
	The Bill is silly. It will not get anybody out of a mess. The Government have exchanged what might have been a brief spurt of indignation for the certainty of five years of increasingly violent guerrilla warfare, which they cannot win and that will continue to gnaw away at them. It needs only one little old lady to chain herself to the proverbial railings, to turn up before the magistrates, and the Government will be right back in the syndrome. The issue is totemic. The Government cannot win because they have deliberately chosen not even to try.

Graham Stringer: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try, with your guidance in mind, to answer the question by relating it to the revaluation and the Lyons review of local government functions and finance. The reason for the delay is that, if we want to comply with those principles—I share some of my hon. Friend's fears—the council tax, which was set up in response to the crisis of a Conservative Government, simply will not bear the weight of democracy.
	We should also remember in considering the revaluation that, although our constituents get very excited about the council tax going up—I understand why and there is some unfairness in the system—I suspect that the Labour party's communications and propaganda do not make enough of the fact that we are still paying 2.5 percentage points of our VAT more than we were paying before 1993 to pay for the mess of the poll tax previously. I use that figure to illustrate the difficulties in using council tax, with its imperfections, as a basic tax to sustain local democracy. People in the streets are not angry that we are paying 17.5 per cent. VAT, rather than 15 per cent., but they are genuinely concerned about council tax because it increases year on year and a bill drops through the door. When Lyons looks at that, people's perceptions must be taken into account.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I clarify matters? A passing reference to Wales is acceptable. What cannot take place is a whole speech referring to Wales, because this Bill and revaluation does not affect Wales.

Maria Miller: I welcome this opportunity to speak about council tax, because the issue is causing immense concern in my constituency. I speak for many Basingstoke families and pensioners who face staggering increases in council tax as a result of the actions of this Government. Those families and pensioners would face almost untenable costs if the Government implemented their intention to revalue, so I support scrapping revaluation in its entirety.
	We are told that the proposal is revenue-neutral, but the actions towards householders in many other aspects of our lives suggest that the cynicism expressed from Opposition Members may be justified. If I may, I shall look at this issue from a slightly different angle—from that of our constituents. A house is a home where we raise our families and live our lives. If we are fortunate enough to own our own home, our families are offered a certain level of security. This Government are using our homes as another way to punish hard-working families for doing the best for their children and to punish pensioners in their retirement.
	House-price inflation does not deliver an additional income to householders. It does not put an additional pressure on local services, and as we have heard today the relative level of house prices has not changed regionally for a decade. Under this Government, house-price inflation has been seen as an opportunity for an additional back-door tax on pensioners and hard-working families. Council tax revaluation is just the latest in a long line of such measures.
	The Government are happy to recognise an increase in property values when it comes to council tax, but not when it comes to inheritance tax. They have continually failed to raise inheritance tax thresholds to reflect house price increases, and in the process have added about a £1 billion tax take to the Chancellor's coffers. Under Labour, stamp duty has tripled in my constituency, with the stamp duty bill for an average detached house being almost £4,000. In Basingstoke, stamp duty is slapped on even the average flat that would be within reach of a first-time buyer. One in three children aged 10 today will be able to own their own home in the future. Contrast that with the last Conservative Government, who helped 2 million people get on the housing ladder under right to buy. The Government have declared war on our home owners of the present and the future.
	Delaying revaluation will leave the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of pensioners and families who have already been penalised enough for doing the right thing, working hard to provide a safe and secure environment for themselves and their families. The Government have tried to paint a different picture and claim that revaluation will be revenue neutral, but that assertion has been blown out of the water by what has happened in Wales, as we have heard today.

Alan Whitehead: We have a rather bizarre debate. On the one hand, the Government are introducing a Bill to postpone revaluation, while stating that they want revaluation to take place. I hope that revaluation is postponed, rather than cancelled or kicked into the far-distant long grass, because it is an important part of continuing with a property-based tax. The Government are changing the 2003 Act in order to retain revaluation. The Opposition, on the other hand, have tabled a reasoned amendment opposing Second Reading, which would simply cause the revaluation to go ahead.
	If Conservative Members vote for the Opposition amendment tonight, they will vote for revaluation. There is no point in their shaking their heads: if Labour Members decide to go home rather than voting in the Chamber tonight and the Conservatives by some mischance win the vote, the relevant section of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended by the Local Government Act 2003, will stay in place and revaluation will go ahead. Furthermore, no one can stop revaluation going ahead in those circumstances, because the provision is on the statute book.
	Conservative Members must be careful. My party does not do this kind of thing, but if a "Focus" leaflet were produced stating, "Local Conservatives vote for revaluation", it would be perfectly fair. "Focus" leaflets are not always fair, but the example I have described would be. Conservative Members, who are looking rather glum, would be well advised to get their own statement out explaining the true reason why they voted for a revaluation that they do not want.
	The Conservative party does not want revaluation—not now, not ever—and it has boxed itself in by stating that it will cancel it. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made an extremely strange comment to the effect that he does not mean "not ever", but, because property prices have converged, there is not a circumstance under which revaluation is necessary. If property prices were to deconverge, the Conservative party would presumably review its policy, but let us take its position on cancelling council tax revaluation as being fairly firm.
	In its local government manifesto in spring 2004, the Conservative party said that it will not introduce any new or higher bandings, so it is boxed in on revaluation and the present bandings. It has said that banding would be the only way in which local government could raise money under a Conservative Government, because it will block taxes other than council tax from entering the local government arena. It also made it clear in its local government manifesto 2004 that it is against local income tax and any other form of transfer tax, so it favours one unchanged, unrebanded tax based on 1992 property values, which is a strange policy.
	One of the problems with the Conservative policy of not rebanding is that, as other hon. Members have said, a council tax base that is not revalued will drift further and further away from actual property values over a period of time. The Conservative Opposition want to enter government with a tax that progressively bears less and less relation to the actual value of property. If one were cynical—as I have said, that is not my position—one would say that that policy would serve some people rather well, because, assuming that house prices continue to inflate, as taxes drift further and further away from real property values, so a larger and larger number of people will be in a band in which no one pays any more council tax, regardless of increases in property values. Perhaps the thinking is driven by the political party that people in those bands tend to support.
	As a method of securing a flat tax that is unrelated to real value—we have heard about flat taxes in recent European elections—the Conservative proposition may be interesting, but in reality the situation is more complicated than that. Over a period of time, high property prices will mean not only that the highest band fails to differentiate between properties in certain parts of the country, but that different sets of flat taxes apply in different parts of the country, because property values will continue to rise at different rates.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman made some interesting and thoughtful remarks about maintaining the position of council tax as a prime tax for local government—there are many reasons why that should be so—without some of the toxic side effects that continue to be associated with it. However, his views contrast significantly with the official position of his Front Benchers, which is to do nothing whatsoever and keep council tax exactly as it is.
	Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats propose to vote with the Government. I am delighted about that, but they are doing so from an entirely different perspective. In a debate that took place a little while ago, I suggested that the policy set out by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) could be compared to Chairman Mao's great leap forward. In 1918, Lenin said that he supported the then Labour leader, Arthur Henderson, like a rope supports a hanging man. It seems that the Liberal Democrats plan to support the Government tonight because they do not want a revaluation in 2007, or ever. They want something entirely different—a local income tax.
	We do not want a long discussion about local income tax, because that is not what we are here for. However, it is widely recognised that it would be impossible for 434 billing authorities to attempt to collect a local income tax that is levied at a different rate from the national rate of income tax. Some people would be resident within the geographical area from which the tax is being levied, some would not be resident, and some would be sometimes resident and sometimes not.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but if he examines those subsections carefully, he will find that, unlike his belief, they are not closely connected.
	I was about to concur largely with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about making council tax work. That is an important element that we need to consider when we examine revaluation.
	Much of the debate has been about bands, including whether we need new bands at the top or at the bottom, whether we should retain existing bands and whether revaluation, which would reband properties, leads to higher council tax. Hon. Members have commented on the fact that, unlike in Wales, rebanding in England could be revenue neutral, if one provided for circumstances in which that could be achieved.

Alan Whitehead: As the hon. Lady knows, the business rate revaluation has been based on its being followed by dampening mechanisms to take account of the differences in the way in which the rate works in various parts of the country. When there is a transition in value between various parts of the country, the dampening mechanism works to a better or lesser extent in different places to equalise as far as possible the effect of the revaluation over a period of time. However, if a dampening mechanism is introduced, it cannot necessarily ensure that there is no difference in yield because it works differently in different parts of the country, depending on the change that has occurred in the revaluation. A revaluation with a dampening mechanism cannot give a revenue-neutral, guaranteed yield in the way that the Government suggested could be done for council tax revaluation. I am sure that the hon. Lady has been greatly enlightened by what I have just said.
	When we consider bands and whether we need new ones, I want to ask whether we need them at all. The previous Conservative Government introduced bands in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. They were prepared in something of a hurry, on the erroneous understanding that they would ultimately get rid of revaluation. I believe that a system of points would be a fairer and better method of valuing properties than the current bands system. We would not then have the worry about moving between bands.
	Points would be given on the basis of a specific valuation. As we have heard, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation has said that, if revaluation were to proceed, it would provide an individual valuation for each property. It would thus be relatively straightforward to move from individual valuation to a series of points rather than placing properties in a band. The total number of points that a local authority had would form the basis on which council tax could be levied. That would provide considerable certainty about the amount of money available for the local authority to levy council tax as part of its budget-making activity.
	Such a system would also mean, if combined with a change in the way in which councils set their council tax, that there would be no gearing effect. If, for example, one were to introduce a marginally variable core grant at the beginning of the process, set the council tax on the basis of points rather than bands, then compensate at the end of the process, one would simply not have the gearing effect. The way in which the settlement was brought about would effectively remove much of the concern about that effect.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Brent, East both mentioned proposals to localise the business rate. It has been suggested that that should happen because it would introduce a greater degree of autonomy to councils in terms of the decisions that they make about their finances. If there were no gearing effect, however, that would be of less significance. However, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly pointed out that, since the business rate was introduced, with the intention that it should not be levied at above the rate of retail price inflation, the percentage of funding into the local government stream that the business rate has provided has gone down from about 27 per cent. to 22 per cent. If we had historically pitched the level of the business rate against increases in earnings rather than in prices, it would have been possible more or less to have kept up that proportion over a period of time. If we prospectively pitched the business rate against earnings rather than prices, it would re-equalise that proportion over time, so that it would continue to operate on a level basis, rather than falling continuously against the total proportion of moneys raised for local government and against the amount raised by council tax. That would resolve another problem.
	There are a number of measures in the Lyons review—or associated with it—that the Government could consider in the context of revaluation, over and above whether we revalue or not, which would bring back a council tax whose operation was significantly refreshed. That is the potential prize that lies ahead of us, assuming that we consider that council tax should continue to be the main device whereby local tax is raised. If, as a result of this process, we achieve a council tax that reflects more marginally on people's concerns about the tax bill landing on the carpet, that relates more fairly in terms of its effects on the rise of property prices and to the actual amount that people pay, and that is in line with the way in which the business rate works, we will have done a good job, so far as temporarily suspending the revaluation is concerned. If the tax comes back refreshed in that way, the question of revaluation will play a part in the process but it will not form most of the process. That would be a positive outcome from a decision that people in some quarters are calling a U-turn, and it could result in something good for future local government.

John Hemming: As an ex-leader of Cambridge city council, my hon. Friend will be aware that the political cost of the council tax has been substantial over time. Part of that has been caused by the continuation of the Conservative Government's policy of increasing council tax by more than inflation. At standard spending, in 1993–94 council tax was £492.66, and in 2002–03 it increased to £769.16. It then changed to the assumed national council tax, putatively £1,000.83, which has increased to £1,101.96. That is a 71.9 per cent. increase in the council tax, while inflation has been 34 per cent.—

Brooks Newmark: I shall try to be brief.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made some excellent points, which were relevant to our own stance. Our stance is that we do not want to proceed with the revaluation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) produced a twist on that. Our election manifesto focused largely on pensioners and old people. Conservative Members feel that re-banding, particularly for pensioners, is an extremely blunt instrument.
	Many pensioners are asset-rich. They have sat in their houses for 20, 25 or 30 years and, often unbeknown to them, the asset value has increased. Unfortunately, however, those pensioners are also cash-poor. They are stuck in a difficult position. I fear that the re-banding will force many of them to move from the homes in which they have lived throughout their lives. We need to deal with that structural conundrum, which is why I oppose any re-banding at any time.
	Let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) by quoting from a press release sent on 20 December by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It announced that the Government intended to suspend the council tax revaluation and extend the scope of Sir Michael Lyons' inquiry, and stated
	"The additional work which Sir Michael will undertake will add value to the Government's own current work on a strategic view of the role and functions of local government, under its local vision programme."
	I am sure that many Opposition Members cannot but agree that council tax increases since 1997 of up to 94 per cent. in my constituency are more an example of double-vision than local vision.
	I go back to my original point. I was lucky enough to be approached by the IsItFair campaign. Last Wednesday, I had an opportunity to present to the House the campaign's petition. The concern of that campaign and the Braintree Pensioners Action Group is not simply that the current system is unfair because of the way it affects pensioners in particular, but that they face a double whammy: re-banding would hurt many pensioners tremendously and ultimately force many of them to move home.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, since 1997, central Government funding has increased in real terms by 33 per cent. Is not the level of council tax—I speak as a former local councillor who served two terms of office—to a great extent due to what local councils themselves want to set it at?

David Davies: I am deeply grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment in a way that I feel is relevant to the Bill.
	I warn hon. Members that, when re-banding was introduced in Wales, we were told that it would be fiscally neutral, just as hon. Members in this Chamber are being told that the re-banding exercise in England will be fiscally neutral. When Governments find that their estimates are not quite what they expected them to be, it is easy for them to manipulate local government funding to raise revenue directly for themselves. If hon. Members' experience is anything like the experience of those of us who live in Wales, they may find that their surgeries are full of people complaining about council tax rises of 130 per cent.
	If we abandon revaluation for good, how will we overcome the problems that will result? To take the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), I think that there is a strong case for looking at the inflation that is occurring within local authorities. Local authority inflation is not at the same headline level as the inflation figures generally. He talks about 33 per cent. extra going into local authorities. I do not dispute that, but what has been the percentage increase in costs for local authorities? For example, a Government initiative such as the teachers work load agreement in Wales—there is an equivalent one in England—is not properly funded. The National Union of Teachers talked about a shortfall of £30 million or so in that alone. If the costs rise above the level that is given to local authorities, they will have to make up the shortfall by putting up council taxes.
	Therefore, the first thing that we need to do is to set up an inquiry into how expensive it is to run a local authority, to take evidence from local government leaders and to ask them about the extra increases and burdens that they have and to what extent they are being funded by Government. There is a responsibility on Government not to announce any headline-grabbing initiatives unless they are prepared to fund them properly.
	The second thing that all of us need to do, whether in Wales or England, is to look at the way in which the formula for local government funding operates. That again is easy to manipulate. In fact, it has been manipulated in a manner that I believe is completely unfair to the southern counties of England and to the rural areas of Wales.
	When assessing deprivation, it is easy to look at the number of people on benefits, which is what the formula does. The formula should take into account average household incomes, because that is a much clearer way of defining deprivation than simply looking at the number of people of benefit. We all know of people working in agriculture, tourism or the service sector for the minimum wage. They are not taking home much money and their incomes are no better than they would be on benefit, but they are not counted as being deprived for the purposes of the formula.

Stephen Crabb: This has been an interesting debate. Having heard Madam Deputy Speaker's clear and helpful guidance earlier, I intend to keep my remarks short and not stray too much into Welsh territory.
	I wish to respond directly to some of the comments of Labour Members, but, first, I should point out that the Welsh experience is relevant. The decision to postpone council tax revaluation in England was described by a Minister as a huge, vaulting, 180° U-turn, and that full-on U-turn is embodied in the Bill. I accept that one of the motivations for that U-turn might be to have a much wider ranging inquiry led by Sir Michael Lyons.
	I believe also that the Government are conscious of the political difficulties that could be caused and, with one eye on the experience in Wales, they will know of the resentment and anger that was caused by a botched council tax revaluation. The Government clearly want to avoid such political difficulties.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), unfortunately, is not in his place but I enjoyed his speech. I learned a lot, although I did not agree with everything he said. He referred to the Welsh experience of revaluation and explained why he will not be voting alongside his colleagues this evening. He made a strong defence of the principle of revaluation and gave assurances that the English and Welsh contexts were different.
	The right hon. Gentleman tried to make the point that, in Wales, the purpose of revaluation was almost to raise money, but that flies very much in the face of explicit assurances given at the time by Labour Ministers in the Welsh Assembly—the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues—who promised that it would be revenue-neutral and was not aimed at increasing the overall yield.
	Likewise, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of winners and losers in the revaluation process and his figures were correct. The proportion of losers in Wales was 33 per cent. of households, with 8 per cent. being winners. Again, contrary to what he seemed to be suggesting, that is at odds with the assurances given by Labour Assembly Ministers at the time, who promised that there would be as many winners as losers. They talked about roughly 50 per cent. of households staying within the same band, with 25 per cent. of bills going up and 25 per cent. going down. I caution hon. Members who hear assurances that revaluation can be revenue neutral; the experience in Wales suggests that perhaps it will not be.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors pointed out that had re-banding in Wales been undertaken in accordance with house price inflation, there would have been a much fairer outcome.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich spoke about public acceptance of council tax and reiterated his faith in the high level of public acceptance of it. The acceptance of council tax in Wales has taken a serious knock as a result of the revaluation and Members on both sides should be aware that if such a revaluation went ahead in England, along anything like the lines of Wales, public confidence in council tax will be damaged.

Mark Hendrick: Before this year's general election, did not the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party say that, if the Conservatives won that election, they would not examine the issue of revaluing properties for council tax purposes in their first term in office? So the leader of the Conservatives accepted that point, as well as our leadership.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend not agree that neither revaluation nor the proposed Lyons inquiry does anything to address the question of the simplification of local government finance? That is an important issue when one considers that local government finance is often thought broadly analogous to the Schleswig-Holstein question, to which, it was said, only three people ever knew the answer. One of them went mad, the second died and the third forgot what the answer was.

Peter Soulsby: I had the privilege of leading Leicester city council for some 17 years. It has been said that that is longer than a life sentence, and at times it certainly felt like it. But in that capacity my city and I survived the rating system, the savage revenue and capital cuts of the early 1980s, and the rate capping and attendant confrontations that took place in what was a pretty painful period. We also survived the poll tax and the disastrous disruption and confrontation that it caused in our city, as it did elsewhere. We are now surviving the council tax and the attendant capping.
	So it is with mixed feelings that I speak on this Bill, because I do not know that many of my constituents are likely to benefit from a revaluation, were one to take place. I realise that there are many different predictions about the possible outcome of such a revaluation, but it seems that my constituents and others in Leicester have suffered from the fact that house prices have risen less significantly there than elsewhere. So there is perhaps some benefit in revaluation, but set against that is the obvious pain that would be caused to those whose revaluation moved in a less favourable direction.
	Far outweighing any of those considerations is the enormous benefit that is to be gained from a thorough review of the functions and the funding method of local government. I am enormously heartened by what the Minister said in introducing this debate about the Government's commitment to devolution and decentralisation in respect of local government. The Lyons review provides a unique opportunity to look at local government root and branch, and to consider not just its funding but ways of ensuring that its future is healthier than the preceding decades have been.
	On balance, I very much favour the deferment of any revaluation, and I look forward to a radical reform of the finance and functions of local government.

Phil Woolas: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that if pensioners are unable to pay their tax, they do not face imprisonment as punishment. It is only those who are unwilling to pay who face such a punitive measure, and there have been only two examples in past 12 months.

Kali Mountford: I shall try to make sure that my question is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Would not it be useful to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said about structure and function, to ensure that the partnerships he mentioned become a wider reality across all services so that the silos to which he referred do not exist?

Andrew Gwynne: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the inequities of the current council tax system is the fact that two identical houses can be in different bands if one was valued in 1991 and the other was subsequently sold on and thus rebanded? Does that not make a mockery of the Opposition's stance of ruling out any kind of rebanding or revaluation for ever?

Rob Marris: I am shocked that any Government would play around with revaluation for party political purposes. However, that is the sort of history that the Conservative party has. I referred to 1956, not 1955, but I believe that the Government managed to string matters out until April 1963. Revaluations can get delayed for too long. I understand why, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) outlined so eloquently, there should be some deferral but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to heed history and not delay revaluation for too long.

Rob Marris: I certainly agree that we can learn from what has happened with business rates, and the House needs to discuss business rates as part of this overall package. We could also learn from what happened in Scotland. The Opposition's amendment tonight decries the fact that the revaluation applies only to England. In Scotland, revaluations have taken place fairly frequently: in 1961, 1966, 1971, 1978 and 1985. They did not take place after 1985, because the poll tax was then introduced, initially in Scotland, without great success either there or in England and Wales. So, yes, we should defer the revaluation in England, but we should certainly not cancel it.
	I disagree with the Opposition's amendment. They dislike the Bill because it applies only to England, but I think that it is absolutely right that we should defer the revaluation in England. Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and National Assembly respectively, and they should be able to do this at a different pace. In Wales, part of the problem was that the revaluation was carried out following a 129 per cent. increase in house prices since the previous one, which brings us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about house prices putting pressure on us, in terms of the public debate on this issue.
	This debate is being held at the same time as Sir Michael Lyons' review. Being a west midlander like me, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might almost remember Mike Lyons when he was in short trousers. His first major job, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members know, was chief executive of Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council, as it was then called. Of course, it is now Wolverhampton city council. Sir Michael Lyons—as I must now learn to call him—is a man with a great track record. I can quite understand why a deferral of the revaluation would be important while the Government are having that investigation carried out, and why such a deferral—as set out in the Bill, and as decried by the Opposition—would be a good thing. I am sure that Sir Michael's review will be very thorough, and very illuminating for us.
	We need a public debate on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley spoke eloquently about the need for public information. There are an awful lot of people, including some in this Chamber, who do not understand the concept of a measure being revenue neutral. A re-banding exercise can be a problem, but if it is set against a series of revenue neutral measures—which is what I hope would happen in England, although it did not happen in Wales—it can even out the discrepancies that have built up due to differential house price rises. Prices in some areas will go up more than others. For example, prices in Stourbridge might go up more than those in Wolverhampton, causing things to get out of kilter. A revenue neutral revaluation would therefore be absolutely right. However, it takes a while to explain the concept of revenue neutrality to people, many of whom, because of many years of underinvestment in education by the Conservatives, are fairly innumerate. We need to have that kind of public debate.

Rob Marris: And if I were to stray too far into what the Lyons inquiry ought to do, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would say that I was going too wide of the point. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, as he did in his lengthy and interesting contribution to the debate earlier. He is much more numerically adept than I am. We might have to encounter gearing as a problem.
	Under the Bill, revaluation would be deferred but not done away with. While I want a deferral, I do not want it to be deferred into the mists of time. A revaluation will address the question of differential house price rises. When house prices rise in different adjacent parts of a constituency, city or rural area, those who have seen an above-average increase in the value of their houses pay lower council tax than they would if a revaluation had taken place. Correspondingly, those whose houses have risen in value by less than the average, assuming a revenue-neutral system, would pay more council tax than they should. That happens to some extent in the current system, but the longer a deferral continues, the more pronounced that unfair trend becomes. Of course, it favours those who have done best out of rising house prices in the booming economy under this Labour Government. The discrepancies and unfairness therefore get worse the longer a revaluation is deferred. Consequently, as I said to my hon. Friend the Minister, while I support a deferral of the revaluation pending the outcome of the Lyons inquiry, I do not want it deferred too long.
	I think that council tax is a good tax. There are problems with it, and I am glad that the review is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, said that there is no perfect tax. Arguably, death duties are a perfect tax, because one pays them only when one is dead. Council tax is quite useful because it is on a house that one cannot move—I do not know the collection rate in your area, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in mine it is about 97 per cent., so it is important to bear that in mind in terms of revaluation. We need to consider what revenues might be brought in, but we also need a sound system that by and large works well, even though there are difficulties.
	I want to stress again the need for better information to accompany the deferred valuation, as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley and for South Ribble, so that people can understand the system as fully as possible and that we can have a properly informed debate.
	The Liberal Democrats went into the last general election saying that they would replace council tax with a local income tax. That is an entirely honourable and understandable position, although they may now have resiled from it, but we need to debate it properly if we are to consider revaluation in the context of an alternative to council tax.
	The amendment says that
	"removal of the need for revaluation of domestic properties offers taxpayers no protection against the imposition of new higher council tax bands."
	That shows that the Opposition have a different view of what a revenue-neutral revaluation might constitute. It suggests that the six Members who tabled the amendment do not understand the system that we have, let alone what it might be turned into. No doubt the Opposition Member who winds up the debate will explain that I have misunderstood, and that those who tabled the amendment understand the mathematics and simply take a different political view, but the wording suggests otherwise, which is deeply worrying.
	I am sure that the Liberal Democrats do understand how the system works and take a different view—if they have a view at the moment. I would not talk about that now even if I were allowed to. It seems, however, that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition do not understand the system that we have, but have nevertheless tabled an amendment suggesting that we decline to give a Second Reading to a Bill deferring revaluation because of all the nasty things that they think would happen in the event of such revaluation. Let us leave aside the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who echoed my hon. Friend the Minister in saying that the Opposition did not appear to realise that if the Bill were not give a Second Reading, revaluation would go ahead. The Opposition seem to be telling us that the Government have got it all wrong, but it is they who have got it all wrong, because they do not understand the present system.

Robert Syms: We have had a good debate, featuring many ex-Ministers and many future Ministers, as well as Members with great experience of local government. It has been such a good debate that many people rushed in at the end to make their own speeches. They must have been terribly impressed by the earlier contributions of Members on both sides of the House.
	I want to concentrate on what has been said by Back Benchers. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made an interesting and honest speech, stating candidly that he thought the revaluation should go ahead. The speech will bear some rereading, as it contained some interesting comments aimed at Ministers. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) demonstrated his experience with the Valuation Office Agency, and made some interesting points, particularly about the cycle of revaluation between council tax and the unified business rate. I think that many people took his speech on board.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made a typically thoughtful and independent-minded speech. Much of it was not party policy, so I will not go into the details, but he made a good point about the balance of funding between council tax and the unified business rate. No doubt the Lyons review will have to take account of that.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) showed his experience of local government, as a former leader of Manchester city council. He said that the council tax had been born out of the difficulties of the poll tax in earlier years. I have some sympathy with his view. It is rather like blaming Napoleon for the introduction of income tax: taxes are normally introduced as a result of crises rather than serene weather and careful thought.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), a former Minister and someone who knows a great deal about these matters, spoke of his concerns and of how he thought council tax ought to be varied. His speech, too, was not party policy, so I shall pass on to the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), who made a characteristically good speech and dealt extremely well with a Liberal Democrat intervention about local income tax.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) was an eloquent defender of her constituents. She spoke of the increase in council tax in her area, and of all the pressures that must be borne by a growth area with additional housing such as Basingstoke and other parts of Hampshire.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) again showed his experience of local government. He took us from Merton to Wakefield—it was a long, long, long journey, but eventually we got there. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) again showed his local government experience and provided a history lesson about the 1992 Act that introduced council tax.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made the valuable point that, if the value of one's house is high, that does not necessarily mean that one is able to pay, and made a plea on behalf of his constituents that ability to pay should be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) made a similar point, echoing the concerns of his constituents in Essex.
	The debate got even better because 100 per cent. of the Welsh Conservative party contributed to it, which is unusual, bearing in mind that this is an English Bill, but it shows the salience of the council tax issue for our neighbours in Wales, who have just been through a revaluation. There is no doubt that the Government considered some of the outcomes of the revaluation in Wales before they determined what to do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) talked about the concerns about revaluation and the hefty rises in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) said that assurances were given to the Welsh Assembly that the process would be revenue neutral and it was not. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) echoed the concerns about the revaluation in Wales. He talked about the rising anger and the 9 per cent. uplift in the yield post revaluation.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) again showed his experience as a leader of Leicester city council and talked eloquently and concisely about his concerns. He did not want the revaluation to be put off for too long, but talked a great deal about function and funding and supported the Government's review and the Lyons review.
	The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) came in and did a reasonable job of keeping the debate going. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) did extremely well to speak for well over 30 minutes and, on the whole, to keep in order. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) showed the benefits of the Library brief, taking us into the history of revaluation. He made the salient point that revaluation, whether under the rates system or the council tax system, has always meant Governments of all political colours facing difficult choices and they do not always make the right one. I am sure that, as he made an eloquent speech and made some good points, he will soon get a well-deserved promotion to the Government.
	The debate is of the Government's own making. Revaluation was not part of the 1992 Act, but the Government decided in July 2001 to revalue council tax on 1 April 2007. That was in the Local Government Act 2003, for which many Labour Members voted. Conservative Members voted for a reasoned amendment. I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. The fact that the Government have changed their minds and are accusing all sorts of people on the Opposition Benches of changing their minds has a lot to do with the fact that they decided to go down that political avenue and have now thought better of it.
	We heard a lot about kicking issues into touch and about panic attacks. It is probably sensible for the Minister to put off revaluation because the salience of the council tax issue is high and increasing. The Welsh experience is a useful one. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors estimates that, if we had the same uplift following the English revaluation as occurred in Wales, that would mean £2 billion extra in council tax, and that council tax for 7 million out of 21 million council tax payers would go up. Those are big figures, which have no doubt concerned the Government and were one of the reasons why they decided to kick the issue into touch.
	Revaluation itself is a costly exercise. In 2004, the cost was estimated at £108 million and, in 2005, at £178 million. We got so far as to spend nearly £60 million, of which £45 million, we heard, was spent on software. I am not sure that we received an answer about the value of the software if the revaluation is put off, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that.
	We heard that the Valuation Office Agency has taken on nearly 1,400 staff to deal with revaluation, many of whom will be on short-term contracts. We have not heard very much about the cost of those appointments. The Government said that there would be savings and, of course, there will be savings, but there will be further costs to come from shortening the contracts of 1,400 staff.
	The hon. Member for South Ribble said that, within the cycle, it would be possible to use those staff and others to undertake a revaluation of council tax and then to get back to the cycle for the revaluation of the uniform business rate. However, the whole thing is now out of synch.

Rob Marris: It can't be true then.

Philip Hammond: £200!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may like to enter that debate but he will not be allowed to do so while we are discussing the Bill.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your firm chairing of this important debate. I emphasise the point that I would like to enter such a debate but I understand why it is not possible.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made a characteristically well-informed and authoritative speech and argued against postponement of the revaluation. I again point out, to reassure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) who also spoke on the matter, that the Bill is a postponement not a cancellation. It may give Members further reassurance to know that the Government could have taken the option to propose simply to cancel the legislation in the Local Government 2003 Act, which amended the Local Government Finance Act 1992. We chose not to do that but to include in our Bill the commitment to introduce revaluation at the appropriate time, following the Lyons review. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will accept that reassurance.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend made that point in the debate. Of course, the answer depends on what happens to house prices. If he is asking whether the Government's policy is to support a property tax on the basis of valuation, the answer is, of course, yes—unlike the Conservative party's policy of supporting property tax without a revaluation, which seems wholly untenable.
	Hon. Members have argued in the debate that there is no need for revaluation. They argue that relative house price movements across the country during the past 10 years are such that the revaluation is unnecessary. They would cancel revaluation, rather than postponing it. However, during the debate of 19 October, when the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) to say whether the Conservatives would ever revalue, the response was "we never say never". We look forward to receiving the Opposition's support for the Bill when it returns to the House after its consideration in Committee because it provides exactly the kind of flexibility that their policy appears to call for.
	Finally, I should remind the House that in the past eight years, the Government have provided a 33 per cent. real-terms increase in Government grant, which compares with a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction in the last four years of the previous Government. Last year was the eighth successive year in which the Government provided local government overall with an increase in total Government grant that was above inflation, and it was the third year in which we were able to guarantee increases for all local authorities at least in line with inflation. One would have thought that the Conservative party would be interested in balancing the books, not scaring the pensioners of this country.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division, and Madam Deputy Speaker having directed that the doors be locked—

Edward Davey: I, too, have the privilege to present to the House of Commons a petition on behalf of more than 7,000 of my constituents in Surbiton and across the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, collected through the good offices of the Surrey Comet, its editor Sean Duggan and assistant editor Colin O'Toole.
	The petition declares:
	That widespread public opposition exists to the current proposals from Kingston Primary Care Trust to move in-patients and out-patients from the site of Surbiton Hospital and that there has been no public consultation on whether to move in-patients.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to intervene to halt the planned axing of services at Surbiton Hospital and to prevent any major changes at the hospital until there has been full public consultation.
	The Petitioners further request that this House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that any redevelopment on the site should be used to improve, not reduce, the provision of health services at Surbiton Hospital.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Ashok Kumar: First, may I put on record my great thanks to the Speaker for granting me this debate?
	I want to bring to the attention of the House the work of Middlesbrough borough council, its elected mayor, Ray Mallon, and the Safer Middlesbrough partnership to cut crime and make the town a safer place. First, I want to praise the efforts of the men and women of Cleveland police, and the force's chief constable, Sean Price, who has made a great contribution to ensuring that the council's plans have succeeded and provided great leadership.
	The success of the initiative would not, of course, have occurred without the Government, who have provided resources, financial support and strong commitment from the top. They have given a strong commitment to tackling crime and law and order problems, and have assisted the local authority and the partnership to deliver results.
	I naturally want to say a little about the respect agenda which the Prime Minister has led from the front. Middlesbrough, like every urban area, has experienced problems of crime and the rise of the yob culture, but it has actively developed a strategy of policies on the ground rooted in a firm determination to take back the streets and estate from the yobs and petty criminals.
	I must declare an interest. I am a very good friend of the mayor, Ray Mallon, and I respect and admire the leadership that he has given our town. Since his election, he has become a national figure. Many Government and Opposition Front Benchers visit his office regularly. It has also been visited by Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales, by the Minister of Communities and Local Government and, of course, by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. Both candidates for the Conservative party leadership have visited Ray Mallon and sought his counsel, and the great and the good of the Labour party establishment also visit and seek his support. He commands a great deal of respect at national level, and he too leads from the front.
	When Ray Mallon ran for office, he made it clear that tackling crime and disorder was one of his top priorities. He has delivered on that pledge, and the success of his approach is reflected in the fact that on the tough urban beat of Middlesbrough, crime has fallen by 20 per cent. since he became mayor. His first act, which he performed only months after taking office, was to launch an initiative called "Raising Hope". Raising hopes and expectations of an effective crackdown on crime, bad manners and loutish behaviour was and is the key priority for everyone in the town.
	I know that directly from my constituency postbag, and also from the comments of people whom I meet in the streets, in their workplaces and at a series of coffee mornings that I hold throughout my constituency. For them, knowing that action is being taken to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour is the key to the hope of a better quality of life. "Raising Hope" is truly a partnership approach, based on Ray Mallon's appreciation of the realities of policing in areas where the louts have established a dominant foothold. It is an intelligence-led approach, and the police share data and information on a daily basis. They work with other control agencies, notably the council and its street-warden service but also local businesses, retailers, pubs and clubs and schools. Their approach links the panda car with the CCTV operator, the school head fighting truancy with the mobile truant patrols in the town centre, and the street warden with the local shop. Above all, it links all those agencies in a relationship with the people and communities of the town.
	Mayor Mallon's philosophy is holistic. To him, a clean, safe environment is one in which crime and antisocial behaviour are driven to the margins. To him, a confident community is one that knows it can report vandals and petty criminals to the authorities, who will listen to their concerns and take action against those who are reported. He also recognises that inequalities and divisions in local society, between rich and poor, young and old and black and white, create an environment in which crime and intolerance can flourish. He argues for the need to rebuild a 19th century industrial town as a new city fit for the 21st century, a city with new businesses, new jobs, new forms of leisure and consumption and clean, swift, efficient transport rising from the foundations of the old. Although all those priorities are ends in themselves, they all play a key role in crime eradication and in making Middlesbrough a truly safe community.
	Ray Mallon has used the legislation provided by successive Government Acts and initiatives to structure his approach. Crucial legislation for him was the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 from the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Local Government Act 2003. Combining the crime-fighting powers conferred on councils and elected mayors by that legislation, he was able to weave together an all-embracing culture in the council and, crucially, outside it.
	Ray Mallon has told me of his frustration with those agencies that publish glossy mission statements and strategy documents and then retire from activity. Those agencies are convinced that, by merely drawing up those documents, they have fulfilled their obligations to their stakeholders and clients. He has told me that he feels that that is one key reason why there is so much cynicism among the general public over the effectiveness of crime-busting measures.
	In order to sell his mission to the people of Middlesbrough, Ray Mallon embarked on a comprehensive road show engaging in debate and discussion with people across the town. I have been present with him at many of those events and he in turn has been prepared to assist me when I have held similar "meet the people" sessions in the part of Middlesbrough that lies in my constituency.
	Ray Mallon takes a personal interest in listening to the people on the front line of local government. Too many councillors, he argues, relate only to chief executives, policy officers and departmental heads. He listens to people in local government such as street wardens, road sweepers, toilet attendants, lollipop ladies and home carers, who seldom, if ever, get to meet their councillors face to face to give their views on the service that they provide and how it could be improved. Mayor Mallon regularly drops in at depots and offices to hear what those employees say and he believes that it has paid dividends.
	Mayor Mallon also recognises that many of the problems facing local communities suffering from crime and antisocial behaviour come from the activities of local young people. He and his cabinet, most notably Councillor Barry Coppinger, the council's lead member for community security, see diversionary activity as the key to peeling youngsters off the road to crime.
	The local drug scene is an example. The headlines talk of crack and heroin. Sadly, crack and heroin abuse does exist in our community. Indeed, much of that abuse contributes to the basic motivation of most of the muggings and burglaries that take place across Middlesbrough. A crack or heroin addict needs constantly to replenish his or her "high" and usually it is someone else's money, handbag or cash till that becomes the target. That is why the crackdown on hard drugs is central for both Cleveland police and the council's community wardens.
	However, far more common than hard drugs is the use of so-called "recreational drugs" for Saturday night fever—mainly ecstasy and other amphetamines. The council's drug strategy reflects that division. The strategy and council staff back Cleveland police 100 per cent. in their "get a dealer a day" campaign and in their work of identifying, targeting and then raiding crack and heroin dens, but they also run education programmes across schools, youth clubs and colleges, alerting youngsters to the dangers posed by the abuse of recreational drugs and to what that abuse can lead to.
	Youth activity and empowerment is central to the council. A small sum spent on a youth centre in an informal setting on an estate, or a minor shift of moneys from the mainstream education budget to a special diversionary scheme run at a street level can bring great rewards. It can pay valuable dividends for the future and can be achieved easily and effortlessly if the will is there.
	The alternative, of course, is to do nothing. That may safeguard the sanctity of a local council's or school's budget in the short term, but will cost society heavily in the years to come. It can cost heavily as antisocial behaviour or teenage deviancy becomes the modus operandi of sub-criminal and criminal behaviour in early adulthood. That is why the need to ensure the success of the respect agenda is so vital.
	We have to remember that we all pay a price for allowing criminality to flourish unchecked. There is the human price wreaked on the powerless and vulnerable by the activities of the thugs and the hooligans, and the physical price of constantly having to resource an ever-expanding police and community security budget, let alone the price of running an effective offender management service and the Prison Service.
	For the respect agenda to take root and flourish, and for it be accepted for real by a jaded public, it has to be seen as part of an all-embracing and holistic programme that is a core part of the life of the community and adopted by all agencies as central to their work. What has been achieved in Middlesbrough shows the way to roll out the respect agenda across the streets, towns and cities of the United Kingdom. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to Middlesbrough where he can see for himself what we have been able to achieve.
	What I have articulated today is a real programme for raising the hopes of our people and improving their quality of life. I am sure that my hon. Friend will return from Middlesbrough with a great deal of information that he can use for the subsequent respect agenda.

Paul Goggins: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate. Tackling local crime is an important issue for all right hon. and hon. Members and I am glad that he had the opportunity to air his views. I pay tribute to his personal role in bearing down on criminality in his constituency.
	My hon. Friend kindly invited me to come to Middlesbrough to see some of these things for myself. I paid a private visit to his constituency as recently as last Saturday; sadly, it was to attend the funeral of a very dear friend of mine, David Boyes. I hope to return in happier times.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his forthright and considered assessment of the current position on crime and disorder in Middlesbrough. He attributed considerable credit to the elected mayor and it was encouraging to hear his observation that the residents of Middlesbrough are pleased with the progress that is being made. The local crime and disorder reduction partnership is making a real difference and I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in praising the local police. I was particularly pleased to hear him emphasise the way in which the agencies in the Middlesbrough area are working well together and making the best use of the available resources.
	This debate comes at a very opportune time as the crime and disorder reduction partnership in Middlesbrough has undergone a number of changes recently. It is now in a better position to deliver its ambitious target of reducing crime by over 20 per cent. by 2008. Such a target is not an end in itself but, if achieved, will have a considerable impact on the safety and confidence of my hon. Friend's constituents.
	I will comment in more detail on the situation in Middlesbrough in a moment. But first, I should like to set the context by saying one or two things about the Government's overall strategy for reducing crime and the progress that we are making.
	Although it is true that our constituents remain understandably worried about crime and still perceive it as one of the main issues that the Government need to address, in fact, crime in England and Wales has been falling dramatically over the past decade. Since 1997, overall crime as measured by the British crime survey is down by 35 per cent., with particularly significant reductions in domestic burglary and vehicle crime. According to the BCS, violent crime has reduced by 34 per cent. in the same period.
	However, such progress is meaningful only if it is translated from percentages into something practical and real at local level that enables local communities to feel safer and to be more secure. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining how this strategy applies in a challenging urban area such as Middlesbrough, which experiences a wide range of crime-related problems. I am certainly pleased to hear positive feedback about how crime and disorder is being tackled in Middlesbrough, and how the local community's concerns are being taken fully into account.
	As I said at the beginning, this is a good time to talk about crime and disorder in Middlesbrough. This year, the Audit Commission found evidence that fear of crime in Middlesbrough appears to be reducing—a feeling supported by recent significant reductions in vehicle crime and robbery. Acquisitive crime—such crime is often associated with drug misuse, as my hon. Friend said—has also reduced significantly overall, pointing to the success of programmes and initiatives such as the drug interventions programme, which is targeted at drug misusers caught in the criminal justice system, and the prolific and priority offenders programme. The latter is targeted at those who commit a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder in our communities.
	This progress was noted during self-assessment of the prolific offenders scheme that was recently conducted in collaboration with the Government office for the north-east. The scheme was particularly strong in areas such as performance management and establishing good practice. The interim evaluation report on the national prolific offenders strategy, which was published just a couple of weeks ago, suggests that the scheme may be having a positive impact on re-offending among this hard core group. I will follow the progress of the Middlesbrough scheme with great interest following this debate. Some other partnerships in the area are also having a positive impact. For example, the Cleveland local criminal justice board is bringing agencies together to ensure, for example, that a larger number of offenders are brought to justice, and that greater community confidence can be built throughout the local area.
	Following the 2004 crime and disorder audit in Middlesbrough, extensive consultation took place involving community organisations, businesses and other stakeholders, in order to help set out the local strategy for the period 2005–08. Respondents were asked about their main priorities for the partnership to tackle, and the following five themes were identified as being of greatest concern: antisocial behaviour, misuse of drugs, house burglary, robbery and mugging, and street violence. As a result of this consultation, the Safer Middlesbrough partnership has agreed an ambitious 20.1 per cent. crime reduction target for the period 2005–08. This target includes a reduction in common assault and wounding of 30 per cent. The partnership has been restructured to integrate drug and crime issues fully under a new chair and a new executive. Although the partnership faces a period of change, local people have every reason to be positive about the changes that have been made, which should ensure that the right structures are in place to deliver the area's crime reduction target.
	Other welcome developments include the introduction of four problem-solving groups to cover the whole of Middlesbrough, in alignment with the community policing areas. The partnership is also implementing initiatives to address drug and alcohol-related violent crime.
	I would also like to commend the partnership agencies in Middlesbrough for their success in tackling antisocial behaviour, using a range of effective tactics, such as antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal orders, to make the streets and neighbourhoods safer. My hon. Friend mentioned and laid great emphasis on the respect agenda, which is being led from the centre and right across government, introducing a range of practical measures to deal with disorder and change the culture so that we can remove fear and enable people to feel safer in their own homes and on their streets. My hon. Friend was quite right to emphasise that it is the poor and the vulnerable who suffer most when people show disrespect in our local communities. Dealing with the problem is very much a matter of social justice.
	In support of those improvements, Government investment in Middlesbrough is increasing. During the current year, the Safer Middlesbrough partnership will receive a total of £345,220 from the Home Office element of the safer stronger communities fund. That will be used to help achieve the agreed crime reduction targets as well as local priorities and includes £25,000 specifically to tackle antisocial behaviour.